AP Muddies Waters on New Poll

Is the Associated Press trying to muddy the campaign waters to benefit Senator Hillary Clinton? The AP just reported on a new poll, titling their story Intensity Differs for Clinton, Giuliani.

The AP begins their story by stating,

Rudy Giuliani's support is broad. Hillary Rodham Clinton's is intense. Among voters of all parties with an opinion, Clinton is viewed favorably by 55 percent, the lowest of all major candidates, according to a Pew Research Center poll released Thursday.

So instead of headlining about intensity, why didn't the AP headline the real story- that wile Senator Clinton has intense support among her faithful, she does not have broad support like that enjoyed by the former New York mayor. The AP goes on to try to build up Clinton's support, stating,

Yet the New York senator is viewed favorably by 88 percent of her fellow Democrats, including 38 percent with a very favorable opinion of her - the highest rating of that intensity for any leading candidate. Such support is good news for her effort to win her party's nomination.

I would agree that her fervent followers in the ranks of the Democratic Party make it virtually impossible for her to lose the nomination, but her chances in a general election are much less favorable. Her negatives, as has been reported on before, are much higher than any of her potential competitors, and a general campaign does not usually lower those negatives- it sends them higher.

But all of this is known already. And in any event, polls this far in advance of a general election are essentially meningless, as many Americans have not even begun paying attention to the various races. Only after the nominations are set will the general public begin to take an interest. that is when polls become useful. The AP appears to be merely trying to bring down the Republicans, and make Hillary seem much stronger than she is with this "news" story.

Terror Attack Helps Republicans, Says Hillary

In a new low of political promoting, Senator Hillary Clinton says that a new terror attack would help Republicans. The New York senator is reported by the New York Post online edition as saying,

"It's a horrible prospect to ask yourself, 'What if? What if?' But if certain things happen between now and the election, particularly with respect to terrorism, that will automatically give the Republicans an advantage again, no matter how badly they have mishandled it, no matter how much more dangerous they have made the world,"

This brings up two points. Firstly, how low has political campaigning sunk that any candidate for the Presidency would even consider saying something like this as part of a campaign. Whether a terror attack would or would not help a single political party should be irrelevant- all Americans should be working together to prevent a terror attack and to defeat our enemies. Unfortunately, that message apparently hasn't reached most of the Democratic Party.

Secondly, how can any media outlet, especially one from a city that has first-hand experience of being attacked by Islamic terror, treat this statement as being a normal, straightforward campaign sound bite? The Post should be ashamed of itself for not highlighting this statement as the partisan and unpatriotic statement that it is. But the Post can only bring itself to call the statement 'surprising'.

This is yet another indication that where Democrats and especially Hillary are concerned, the national media has only one standard for their comments- help them win at any cost.